Comparative Analysis of the Environmental Performance …
727
munication strategies or aspects at the UCh and UNGS respond to the fact that the
UCh do not train students and in the case of the UNGS, it does not train staff and
does not document the program.
At the UNGS, lectures were designed for incoming students, with the aim to
encourage them to separate the waste. This is an important point because for those
who enter university and start a new stage in their lives, waste management is not
usually a priority issue as compared with other aspects of university life (Zhang et al.
2011). Likewise, the need to adapt the signaling and periodically reinforce the dissemination of the program are critical points mentioned in various initiatives, since,
after making the relevant corrections, the separation results improved (Espinosa et al.
2008). However, at the UNGS, these activities were carried out intermittently and at
present are not being carried out because the mechanisms of implementation of such
actions require access to certain administrative areas, which is unattainable without
a framework that endorses them.
8 Discussion
Here, we studied the environmental performance of university campuses in LAC
through the case study of four university campuses that have implemented SWMPs.
These programs were analyzed in their three stages of development, implementation
and monitoring, and environmental performance indicators were applied to investigate the factors that lead to their success.
Results showed that the UA has the highest environmental performance index,
followed by the UNGS, which obtained an index higher than that of the UCh and
UM, mainly due to the monitoring stage, while in the communication results, the
UNGS obtained the lowest score. This seems to imply that the proposed indicator of
monitoring should contemplate the results of the monitoring, indicating the success
or efficiency of the program. However, since the monitoring methodologies used by
the universities differ, it is difficult to compare the indicators obtained.
At the UNGS, the separation efficiency is determined with respect to the total
waste generated, whereas at the UA and UCh the separation efficiency is determined
with respect to total annual amounts recovered by category. This way of reporting
loses reference with respect to the total waste generated at the institution.
The development of an efficiency monitoring indicator that can be compared
between universities also means unifying the measurement methodology, which
should be simple and clear. Wilson et al. (2015) proposed the recycling rate, calculated as the percentage of waste recovered with respect to the total generated
(including both recycling and composting). Although this indicator was developed
for cities, it may be applicable to certain university campuses, since due to their size
and diversity of activities they can be considered as small cities (Alshuwaikhat and
Abubakar 2008).
Regarding the development, implementation and monitoring of the SWMP, we
observed that the diagnostic studies by activity area (Smyth et al. 2010) implemented
727
munication strategies or aspects at the UCh and UNGS respond to the fact that the
UCh do not train students and in the case of the UNGS, it does not train staff and
does not document the program.
At the UNGS, lectures were designed for incoming students, with the aim to
encourage them to separate the waste. This is an important point because for those
who enter university and start a new stage in their lives, waste management is not
usually a priority issue as compared with other aspects of university life (Zhang et al.
2011). Likewise, the need to adapt the signaling and periodically reinforce the dissemination of the program are critical points mentioned in various initiatives, since,
after making the relevant corrections, the separation results improved (Espinosa et al.
2008). However, at the UNGS, these activities were carried out intermittently and at
present are not being carried out because the mechanisms of implementation of such
actions require access to certain administrative areas, which is unattainable without
a framework that endorses them.
8 Discussion
Here, we studied the environmental performance of university campuses in LAC
through the case study of four university campuses that have implemented SWMPs.
These programs were analyzed in their three stages of development, implementation
and monitoring, and environmental performance indicators were applied to investigate the factors that lead to their success.
Results showed that the UA has the highest environmental performance index,
followed by the UNGS, which obtained an index higher than that of the UCh and
UM, mainly due to the monitoring stage, while in the communication results, the
UNGS obtained the lowest score. This seems to imply that the proposed indicator of
monitoring should contemplate the results of the monitoring, indicating the success
or efficiency of the program. However, since the monitoring methodologies used by
the universities differ, it is difficult to compare the indicators obtained.
At the UNGS, the separation efficiency is determined with respect to the total
waste generated, whereas at the UA and UCh the separation efficiency is determined
with respect to total annual amounts recovered by category. This way of reporting
loses reference with respect to the total waste generated at the institution.
The development of an efficiency monitoring indicator that can be compared
between universities also means unifying the measurement methodology, which
should be simple and clear. Wilson et al. (2015) proposed the recycling rate, calculated as the percentage of waste recovered with respect to the total generated
(including both recycling and composting). Although this indicator was developed
for cities, it may be applicable to certain university campuses, since due to their size
and diversity of activities they can be considered as small cities (Alshuwaikhat and
Abubakar 2008).
Regarding the development, implementation and monitoring of the SWMP, we
observed that the diagnostic studies by activity area (Smyth et al. 2010) implemented